iggi Posted September 5, 2000 Share Posted September 5, 2000 A thought for CM2. I wanted to ignore an enemy tank that had it's gun knocked out. I wanted my tank to support my infantry against enemy infantry. Would be nice to be able to select a vehicle and then press an ignore key. Thus only the vehicle selected will be ignored. That would be perfect for ignoring gun damaged tanks that your tanks keep trying to hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 5, 2000 Author Share Posted September 5, 2000 PS the enemy tank was withdrawing since it seemed in fear because its gun was damaged. My tank was still targeting it but I desperatley needed to support infantry nearby. Moving my tank to loose LOS to the gun damaged enemy tank cost me too much time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted September 5, 2000 Share Posted September 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: A thought for CM2. I wanted to ignore an enemy tank that had it's gun knocked out. I wanted my tank to support my infantry against enemy infantry. Would be nice to be able to select a vehicle and then press an ignore key. Thus only the vehicle selected will be ignored. That would be perfect for ignoring gun damaged tanks that your tanks keep trying to hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't want this. Why? I don't think I should always know when an enemy's gun has been damaged. More FOW please, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 5, 2000 Author Share Posted September 5, 2000 I didn't know 100% that the enemy's tank was damaged. I figured it out. Get it? The tiger was shooting at me, then after taking a hit, it stopped shooting and started to retreat away from supporting an important thrust. My sense was that he was high tailing it out of danger. I could not capitalise on my sense cause my tank wanted to kill a tank. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 5, 2000 Author Share Posted September 5, 2000 As the tiger was retreating, he was not returning fire, I was sure his gun was damaged. I think that's where a direct order to ignore *that* tank is usefull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 5, 2000 Author Share Posted September 5, 2000 The only exception to a specific ignore order would be in the case that I was wrong and the tiger let loose a round towards my tank. So in a sense the ignore order would be don't fire unless fired upon, (not mg fire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 the "IGNORE" order has been discussed before. I have found myself wanting it many a times. The ability to give an order of targets to be serviced (first this, then this then this) would supplement this nicely. just my worthless 2 eurocents ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 I have just this problem at the moment, lossing a PBEM because a Panther was controlling the only Flag and my Sherman III couldn't get near it. Before I gave up I decided to land some HE on the Panther and then charge it with the Sherman (hope to use the gyro). The Panther was fireing at some of my Infantry so ther was a chance of a turret side hit. Well Charge. The Panther gun started swinging even before I was in sight. I fire, ping, bounce. Thats it I thought, end of game. But nothing....I bounce another couple of shots and still no reply. My HE must have got his gun. Next turn I try and mop up his infantry but the Sherman is fixated on the Panther (understandable I suppose) But after bouncing another couple of shots IT actually starts to retreat!!!! HELP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basebal351 Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 I don't know about an "ignore" command. I think it's getting too close to the micromanagement that BTS wanted to avoid. Yes, the main gun on the tank is knocked out, but that doesn't mean that your crew still doesn't percieve it as a threat. That tank could still fire it's machine guns (very deadly to any infantry, and annoying to your tank crews), could still act as a form of reconnaissance (it's seeing your forces), or could be easily restored and put back into action in an operation. The reason this tank is targeted is BECAUSE the TacAI percieves it as the greatest threat. An all-encompassing "Ignore" command would defeat the purpose of the TacAI, and give the player too much command over his/her troops. "But there's a Target command!," you say. Well, yes there is. But just because you choose to target an enemy doesn't mean your troops are going to fire at him no matter what. Your troops, due to the TacAI, will fire at the first target that they percieve to be a bigger threat/greater target. And there's no better target than a tank with a damaged gun, no? And no, an "ignore" command couldn't work with the battle system in it's current form. Because, more likely than not, your tank is firing at that other tank because the TacAI has ALREADY judged it to be the best target. I don't know what previous arguments on this subject have concluded, but I feel that this level of detail, this micromanagement, shouldn't touch Combat Mission with a ten foot pole. Besides, it's just not realistic for someone to ignore a good target, like a tank with a damaged gun. Besides, if it bothers you, hold your infantry back until a threat like a tank has been completely eliminated ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 6, 2000 Author Share Posted September 6, 2000 I don't see it as micro management. I see it as allowing human being common sense to decide. I guess it would take more coding to give the AI that sense than to have an ignore feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 Basebal, I am asking you, do want a game that works? LOL...seriously, I agree with iggi, there already IS a lot of micromanaging, actually micromanaging is what you do all the time during the orders phase. Of course there is the question of scale, ie, what "micromanaging" actually is. We are not choosing ammo type, yes. But the IGNORE command would be on the same micromanage-level as the orders UN-/HIDE, TARGET and UN-/BUTTON. ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 iggi, Your claim is somewhat reasonable, but I am not conviced by the example you cite that your armor would have that thought process. It seems reasonable to me that an enemy tank would sometimes withdraw out of pure self-preservation. And your tank crew would also act out of self preservation, wanting to kill the threat to them above any other target. Think of it this way, without the damage labels on, would you really *know* for a fact that your opponent was pulling back for that reason. You might suspect something if your enemy was much larger than you, but not enough to risk turning your attention away from them. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 Foobie, the example iggi showed may not be the best t illustratze the benefits of an ignore command. But the IGNORE command wouldn't be limited to employment in said sitzuation; like any command, it's usage envelope is practically unlimited, especially in combination with other orders. For example, it would help remedy the much whined-about dumb-wittmann-shoots-crews problem entirely - just put the IGNORE tag on identified crews that appear over the area, and voila less distraction = more destruction But there are many more benefits to it. Buy it now while supplies last, and you will not only receive a 2-year supply of IGNORE command, but we will also give you a target-prioritizing/ordering AND a BUTTON-UNBUTTON command to be used at waypoints not only at the beginning of the turn! grab your VISA, master the possibilities and call 1-800-BIG-TIME! Our friendly operators, Steve and Charles, are standing by to receive your order for an order! ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 When you put it that way, I think it sounds pretty good, but i will ONLY sign up for it if Detailed Gun hits is removed from Full Fog of War..... Detailed gun hits should only show on a no fog of war game.... Fair trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 I just had this in a PBEM. I got a gun hit on a tiger and its turret was facing off-line about 15 degrees. This is where it has stayed for 5 rounds. It was obviously fugged, it couldnt even point the main gun at my tanks any more. I think it would have been obvious to a Vet crew that the gun was outta of action. I'm all for an ignore command, it would fix a lot of "issues" IMO. Something like an orange line coming from your unit to all currently ignored enemy units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 grrr.... yes, hmmm..... ok you're a tough bargainer but ok I'll do it with a bleeding heart... ok, we have a deal, fair trade (shaking hands) ([visible only to audience] what Foobar does not know is that Hofbauer would give up detailed gun hit info any day and even pay for it) ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) [edited to enhance the cheap joke and to include the signature, and because I "do want a post that works!!!"] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 6, 2000 Author Share Posted September 6, 2000 *Captain Foobar* , I didn't have those lables on. I figured it out all by myself . One min we were playing ping pong and the next, the tiger was retreating. This while his infantry was advancing. Obviously he wanted to preserve his tiger as a mobile mg. While retreating, no return fire was given by him. I figured it out without labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 I can see how you, iggi the player, would come to that conclusion, but I still believe that a Tank Commander would not be able to reason it as easily as you have. Its a judgment call, but in my thinking we are trying to get a game rule to cover a majority of situations. I believe that in most situations you would not be able to deduce that an armor unit pulling back is doing so because he is having gun trouble. Not enough to override the fight or flight instinct of the TC. Again, just my opinion, and I am happy to discuss it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: I didn't know 100% that the enemy's tank was damaged. I figured it out. Get it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe you figured it out, but that doesn't mean that your tank commander did; his job is to estimate what the most dangerous threat is, taking into account what he can see. What he saw was a Tiger firing on him stop firing and beginning to retreat. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Tiger is incapacitated, he might have decided that there was something more important elsewhere, or he could have been ordered to move somewhere else. Besides, your tank commander's attention was focused on the Tiger; in addition to the other reasons, he might have decided to try to kill the Tiger so that he could brag afterwards about how he killed a Tiger from the front. Just relax: in the game, the units sometimes have a mind of thier own, as in the real world, and men under fire don't always make the most rational choice. For what it's worth, if I had been commanding the tank, you can bet that Tiger would have received a couple more shells on the nose whether he was shooting back or not Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 IMHO...i would like the ignore key too...in fact...regarding posts refering that it lowers realism cuz u'd just ignore stuff that u hit indicating "gun hit"...i think the ignore key would work well as I don't even want a message telling me i hit the gun....i don't think there's much of a chance u could see well enough that u hit the gun, or the armour behind it, unless ur w/i 100 meters. I would like to see an ignore key, NO indication that i hit a gun, therrefore, if a tank stops shooting at me after i pelted it, i can either assume i killed its gun and risk disengaging, or choose to take it out...but yes..Iggi...more than once my tank swings its turret to engage a running wounded halftrak only to waste all that time as the enemy sinks behind a hill...now, the turrets gotta swing all the way around to re-engage the 4 troops that have already killed 137654 of my troops because they were unsupported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 Iggi, Picture this scene in your head: You are the allied TC, buttoned up, peering thru your vision slit, watching rounds from a Tiger richochet off your tank. Your rounds in turn bounce off him with no apparent result. This goes on for a few exchanges (imagine the state of your crew as each round clangs off). Suddenly, thru the smoke, you see him slowly back up. At precisly the same time your commander calls in on the radio "It looks like you damaged his gun...ignore him and start shooting at those guys with rifles over there. Don't worry about the Tiger, I'm pretty sure he's harmless now." What would you do? ------------------ Charlie don't surf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaffod Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 Ok... does everyone here (at least the ones who crave the ultimate realism) leave the detailed armor hits on or off?? From what im getting here it seems like a gamey feature. I always thought that a tank crew would be able to tell if they achieved a gun hit.. There were some good optics in many tanks of that time... Im also assuming a 'gun hit' is a shot that penetrates/detereorates the mantlet or barrel only! The detailed text just mirrors the crew's interperetation of what kind of hits they take and make. What all of you guys's take on this?? Zaf' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zaffod: Ok... does everyone here (at least the ones who crave the ultimate realism) leave the detailed armor hits on or off?? From what im getting here it seems like a gamey feature. I always thought that a tank crew would be able to tell if they achieved a gun hit.. There were some good optics in many tanks of that time... Im also assuming a 'gun hit' is a shot that penetrates/detereorates the mantlet or barrel only! The detailed text just mirrors the crew's interperetation of what kind of hits they take and make. What all of you guys's take on this?? Zaf'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But were they (in real life) always 100% right? That's my only beef in the game. I just can't believe that 100% of the time someone could tell if the gun was rendered useless. I would love to see a "Gun Hit?" or even just no information *sometimes*. This is strictly for PBEM, as I play solo with detailed hits *off*. In PBEM I want every advantage I can get, so I turn detailed hits *on* My .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 6, 2000 Author Share Posted September 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are the allied TC, buttoned up, peering thru your vision slit, watching rounds from a Tiger richochet off your tank. Your rounds in turn bounce off him with no apparent result. This goes on for a few exchanges (imagine the state of your crew as each round clangs off). Suddenly, thru the smoke, you see him slowly back up. At precisly the same time your commander calls in on the radio "It looks like you damaged his gun...ignore him and start shooting at those guys with rifles over there. Don't worry about the Tiger, I'm pretty sure he's harmless now."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok I see how immeresed he must be. His situational awareness must be alot lower than mine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For what it's worth, if I had been commanding the tank, you can bet that Tiger would have received a couple more shells on the nose whether he was shooting back or not<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh Henri, I have room for another PBEM on my list. Up for a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted September 6, 2000 Share Posted September 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: Oh Henri, I have room for another PBEM on my list. Up for a game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, send me your setup (played before or not, QB or scenario, I don't care) at h.arsenault@videotron.ca, my gaming address. I haven't won a game yet (two losses and a draw so far), but maybe my luck will change Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts